I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
No. What are you basing this on? What could possibly give you that idea? Wes Anderson is like the posterboy for someone with their own distinct authorial style in cinema. To the point that, as someone posted only a day or two ago, you can mock it and everyone gets the joke.
He gets movies published through companies like Focus, who are owned by Universal.
If you honestly think his stuff is just direct from the director to film and to the theater, that's just... that's not how any major film is released. Ever.
You're ignoring wild differences in degrees of control
No, I'm waiting for proof that Wes Anderson has executive control over a major studio he doesnt own.
What even is this standard? WTF are you talking about?
You're asking me to believe that Wes Anderson's movies aren't put through the same old Hollywood testing that every other movie in existence out of a major studio does. I'm being told that major studio releases by X people aren't marketed, modified, researched, and reshot, which goes against quite literally every single thing we hear out of Hollywood all the time.
No, they dont get the same scrutiny as an MCU film, but they absolutely are marketed to hell and back. Major studio releases always get marketed. It's just the marketing that appeals to a different demographic.
I feel like pretending this doesnt happen to certain auteurs kills the discussion dead because it's entirely removed from reality.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
How do you explain the vast amount of films that get made, hit the festival circuit, and only then get picked up for distribution? Not every movie is made by a studio shopping a script around like we see in Entourage.
It's naive to think a huge blockbuster film wouldn't have some degree of exec meddling but smaller features? I seriously doubt they would be treated the same way at all.
They're not paying to make the movie. Someone else has already taken that on.
Yeah, usually a bank. Those banks don't care what you're making for a movie.
I'm basing this on a good friend of mine that has made multiple motion pictures with real budgets, etc. They come up with a concept, find financing, film it, and shop it for distribution. At no point are executives getting involved to restructure the film.
And they do this for major studios, like Universal or Disney?
I've got a friend on social media I went to college with who just got done with a movie with a 2 million dollar budget and they didn't do the interference, but it's from a small ass studio and not from one of the above or a subsidiary.
They do it for nobody but themselves. They make the film and then use the major studios for distribution.
It's almost like we're not talking about the same thing.
There is still executive meddling, it just comes at the “do we pick this up for distribution” stage instead of at the “during filming we are making sure this is something we want to distribute”
I think deciding whether or not to distribute a film is markedly different from getting involved with script rewrites by committee and such.
Yes, studio funded pictures are far more susceptible to this because they're owned by the studio. It's also something that has been done for decades: Focus testing, rewrites, reshoots, marketing, etc. Making a movie with studio money results in studio control. Holy shit.
This all came about from Scorsese naming people who publish films through major studios, which means they likely go through the same path since I don't remember the last one of them that got picked up on the indie circuit.
It's just more "back my day men were real men and the Beatles were the best music ever made and nobody can do it better" boomer shit.
I think Scorsese's argument isn't helped by one or two lines that are often repeated out of context. Read the whole thing, though, and those lines are really the least important part of his argument.
As usual with such things, he said some provocative shit off the cuff and it kinda obscured his overall point.
I think his recent clarification is a much better place to look for what Scorsese's argument is.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
"Absolutely new" is... woof
Do you think he's wrong about "That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."?
That's always been the nature of Hollywood. To say anything else is an absolute fantasy
Nah. Plenty of things come out of Hollywood that are nothing like that. The list Scorsese makes in that quote you are complaining about is a simple example of that. It is, after all, the entire point of him giving the list.
You think films by Wes Anserson aren't precisely marketed, studied, and vetted with test audiences to appeal to a certain demographic?
I'm out. This is beyond absurd.
No. What are you basing this on? What could possibly give you that idea? Wes Anderson is like the posterboy for someone with their own distinct authorial style in cinema. To the point that, as someone posted only a day or two ago, you can mock it and everyone gets the joke.
He gets movies published through companies like Focus, who are owned by Universal.
If you honestly think his stuff is just direct from the director to film and to the theater, that's just... that's not how any major film is released. Ever.
You're ignoring wild differences in degrees of control
No, I'm waiting for proof that Wes Anderson has executive control over a major studio he doesnt own.
What even is this standard? WTF are you talking about?
You're asking me to believe that Wes Anderson's movies aren't put through the same old Hollywood testing that every other movie in existence out of a major studio does. I'm being told that major studio releases by X people aren't marketed, modified, researched, and reshot, which goes against quite literally every single thing we hear out of Hollywood all the time.
No, they dont get the same scrutiny as an MCU film, but they absolutely are marketed to hell and back. Major studio releases always get marketed. It's just the marketing that appeals to a different demographic.
I feel like pretending this doesnt happen to certain auteurs kills the discussion dead because it's entirely removed from reality.
You've claimed you are out like 3 times now. Leave the melodrama for the films dude.
And yes, I am asking you to just accept the rather obvious fact that not every film is market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, etc to hell and back. That plenty of films just get made because the studio trusts the people making them and lets them do their own thing in their own style. That's where you get directors with very distinct and sometimes quite niche styles from. Like, do you think market-research and audience-testing and studio oversight gets you a David Lynch film? Shit, there's the story about his time on Twin Peaks where one of the TV execs asks "Can we give you a few suggestions?" and he just said "No". Or even on the shittier end, you get George Lucas and the Prequels.
Again, this just seems like nothing more then another attempt to avoid having to engage with people's criticisms in the thread by pretending like all films are the same on this account.
I mean, I feel that with everything I've heard or read about Hollywood that this is naive.
Especially since we're not talking about 1980's TV like Twin Peaks, we're talking about major studio movie releases in the modern era. We'll say past 20 years, going by Scorsese's own timeline on when movies just really started being horrible.
And George Lucas owned the studio that made the Prequels, so again, your argument makes no sense.
Everything gets vetted, tested, and marketed. Everything. Unless you have proof to the contrary, other than "but these movies are art and those are not", it's a leap in logic I refuse to accept just on its own merits.
You have no proof of your own argument dude. We're talking about movies in general. Which is no different in many ways then any other form of mass media, be they books or TV or music or whatever. There's editors and executives and producers and all that in every industry and the amount of influence they have over any work varies from work to work. Which is why artists struggling with control of their own work is such a fucking cliche in these industries.
Your argument is that movies are unique and special and it's always the same for every film. It's ludicrous on it's face and it's an argument that exists so we can move on to yet another line, like "you just hate them because they are popular", where you don't have to actually engage with what people are actually saying.
To the bolded: Every single documentary, article, interview, and behind the scenes process of making a film is my proof.
You're asking me to accept a fairy tale because its a director you like and you don't want to think he's part of the process. Not happening.
How do you explain the vast amount of films that get made, hit the festival circuit, and only then get picked up for distribution? Not every movie is made by a studio shopping a script around like we see in Entourage.
It's naive to think a huge blockbuster film wouldn't have some degree of exec meddling but smaller features? I seriously doubt they would be treated the same way at all.
They're not paying to make the movie. Someone else has already taken that on.
Yeah, usually a bank. Those banks don't care what you're making for a movie.
I'm basing this on a good friend of mine that has made multiple motion pictures with real budgets, etc. They come up with a concept, find financing, film it, and shop it for distribution. At no point are executives getting involved to restructure the film.
And they do this for major studios, like Universal or Disney?
I've got a friend on social media I went to college with who just got done with a movie with a 2 million dollar budget and they didn't do the interference, but it's from a small ass studio and not from one of the above or a subsidiary.
They do it for nobody but themselves. They make the film and then use the major studios for distribution.
It's almost like we're not talking about the same thing.
There is still executive meddling, it just comes at the “do we pick this up for distribution” stage instead of at the “during filming we are making sure this is something we want to distribute”
Investors still give notes and make filming demands.
Are we back on the "my taste is objectively correct" argument?
What magic words do you want before a post to accept that someone is just posting their opinion?
Probably not ones that define this as objective truth: "but these particular superhero movies (in general) have bland action, are too formulaic in their plots, are too similar in visuals and score, and fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme."
I think deciding whether or not to distribute a film is markedly different from getting involved with script rewrites by committee and such.
Yes, studio funded pictures are far more susceptible to this because they're owned by the studio. It's also something that has been done for decades: Focus testing, rewrites, reshoots, marketing, etc. Making a movie with studio money results in studio control. Holy shit.
This all came about from Scorsese naming people who publish films through major studios, which means they likely go through the same path since I don't remember the last one of them that got picked up on the indie circuit.
It's just more "back my day men were real men and the Beatles were the best music ever made and nobody can do it better" boomer shit.
Ok but on the last page you were saying emphatically that it was every movie and you required proof that the opposite wasn't true. I was just posting to let you know that, hey, I have friends who do this for a living and that it is not always the case.
I agree, but it was framed as an objective observation.
Taste is subjective, but there are objective qualities you can point to in food or film by way of comparison. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I like pickles, but this particular brand of pickles are too slimy, too salty, and gross-looking”.
I like superhero movies, but these particular superhero movies (in general) have bland action, are too formulaic in their plots, are too similar in visuals and score, and fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and the
jungleroomx on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think deciding whether or not to distribute a film is markedly different from getting involved with script rewrites by committee and such.
Yes, studio funded pictures are far more susceptible to this because they're owned by the studio. It's also something that has been done for decades: Focus testing, rewrites, reshoots, marketing, etc. Making a movie with studio money results in studio control. Holy shit.
This all came about from Scorsese naming people who publish films through major studios, which means they likely go through the same path since I don't remember the last one of them that got picked up on the indie circuit.
It's just more "back my day men were real men and the Beatles were the best music ever made and nobody can do it better" boomer shit.
Ok but on the last page you were saying emphatically that it was every movie and you required proof that the opposite wasn't true. I was just posting to let you know that, hey, I have friends who do this for a living and that it is not always the case.
Major studios.
Especially major movies that get released nationwide by big names. If there was any confusion on my part I do apologize.
I think deciding whether or not to distribute a film is markedly different from getting involved with script rewrites by committee and such.
Yes, studio funded pictures are far more susceptible to this because they're owned by the studio. It's also something that has been done for decades: Focus testing, rewrites, reshoots, marketing, etc. Making a movie with studio money results in studio control. Holy shit.
This all came about from Scorsese naming people who publish films through major studios, which means they likely go through the same path since I don't remember the last one of them that got picked up on the indie circuit.
It's just more "back my day men were real men and the Beatles were the best music ever made and nobody can do it better" boomer shit.
Ok but on the last page you were saying emphatically that it was every movie and you required proof that the opposite wasn't true. I was just posting to let you know that, hey, I have friends who do this for a living and that it is not always the case.
Major studios.
Especially major movies that get released nationwide by big names. If there was any confusion on my part I do apologize.
I'm not getting your distinction then because the films I'm talking about have major distribution and nationwide theater presences and an ongoing life on Netflix etc.
I guess ultimately my point is that not every movie gets made the way you seem to think they get made. Not even most movies for that fact. Yes, a lot of major motion pictures are made by committee, but not all of them. Not even close. That being said, I really doubt that the Marvel/Starwars, etc of the world don't have a million fingers in the pie.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think deciding whether or not to distribute a film is markedly different from getting involved with script rewrites by committee and such.
Yes, studio funded pictures are far more susceptible to this because they're owned by the studio. It's also something that has been done for decades: Focus testing, rewrites, reshoots, marketing, etc. Making a movie with studio money results in studio control. Holy shit.
This all came about from Scorsese naming people who publish films through major studios, which means they likely go through the same path since I don't remember the last one of them that got picked up on the indie circuit.
It's just more "back my day men were real men and the Beatles were the best music ever made and nobody can do it better" boomer shit.
Ok but on the last page you were saying emphatically that it was every movie and you required proof that the opposite wasn't true. I was just posting to let you know that, hey, I have friends who do this for a living and that it is not always the case.
Major studios.
Especially major movies that get released nationwide by big names. If there was any confusion on my part I do apologize.
I'm not getting your distinction then because the films I'm talking about have major distribution and nationwide theater presences and an ongoing life on Netflix etc.
I guess ultimately my point is that not every movie gets made the way you seem to think they get made. Not even most movies for that fact. Yes, a lot of major motion pictures are made by committee, but not all of them. Not even close. That being said, I really doubt that the Marvel/Starwars, etc of the world don't have a million fingers in the pie.
Oh the Marvel and Star Wars films have a billion or so fingers in the pie.
Just rewatched The Flowers of St. Francis because I'm working on the 1950 list and haven't seen it in years, and I was even more impressed than I was the first time. It's a very lively, naturalistic film about the saint that doesn't preach Christianity itself as much as compassion for fellow man and a connection to nature. The vignette structure bothered me the first time I saw it, but now I really like it. It's almost like little bible stories, but they have this lovely, sometimes incomplete and ambiguous tone to them, like they trust nature, or God, or the audience to take them as they will. And enough can't be said about Rossellini's visual instincts, which are incredible: painterly, authentic, simple, never once evoking the transcendental or falling into the solemnity that bogs down and antiquates so much religious art. Great movie; it felt restorative watching it.
Anyone else remember like 15 years ago when Disney was a laughing stock?
like "Disney? Are they still making movies?"
"They own Pixar."
"OHHHH ohohoh. That explains it. Man Disney used to be so huge. I wonder how long they'll stick around...."
Now 15 years later they own like 60% of Hollywood.
Disney the machine may not be great, but the MCU is. In a way the smartest thing Disney has done with Marvel is (ironically) leave them the hell alone. Creatively speaking.
My umbrage is with people who try and tear down the MCU by saying things like "action is crap" or "story is cookie cutter" or they are "all the same". Which is flat not true.
I detest pickles, but i don't go around claiming they're poisonous.
Taste is subjective, but there are objective qualities you can point to in food or film by way of comparison. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I like pickles, but this particular brand of pickles are too slimy, too salty, and gross-looking”.
I like superhero movies, but these particular superhero movies (in general) have bland action, are too formulaic in their plots, are too similar in visuals and score, and fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme.
Are you saying MCU movies have bland action and fail to accomplish character development and theme????
They absolutely do. SO much, that i'd posit you DONT actually like super hero movies. There may be a few that you enjoy despite the subject matter, or that arent actually "super hero movies" despite having a super hero character.
And since you probably dont actually like super hero or "comic book" style story telling you're never going to like the MCU. Which is fine! Absolutely. Again, i dont like pickles! People have tastes and thats ok.
But to say that its "bland action" and "fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme" is so just very wrong i dont even know where to start.
Like saying that pickles are poisonous. When they very much are not.
Let’s see, a list of superhero movies I really like:
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman Forever
Batman and Robin
Iron Man
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Watchmen
Unbreakable
Super
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
Black Panther
Suicide Squad
Daredevil (the Affleck one, especially the director’s cut)
X-Men
X-Men 2
Deadpool
The Incredibles
Logan
Mystery Men
Megamind
Superman Returns
The Lego Batman Movie
And I’ve enjoyed many others. I love the superhero genre, in film, comics, even novels. It’s because I love it that I’m always looking for greatness in it. And these pickles aren’t great.
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Dead people should be in the public domain after a certain amount of time! Anyone should be able to dig up ole James Dean and use him in their project without negotiating with his estate.
Dead people should be in the public domain after a certain amount of time! Anyone should be able to dig up ole James Dean and use him in their project without negotiating with his estate.
I disagree, the human soul falls far more in line with trademark guidelines than copyright ownership, which means if it's maintained by the estate it remains viable.
Dead people should be in the public domain after a certain amount of time! Anyone should be able to dig up ole James Dean and use him in their project without negotiating with his estate.
I disagree, the human soul falls far more in line with trademark guidelines than copyright ownership, which means if it's maintained by the estate it remains viable.
Fair point, I now agree with you one-hundred percent.
What's weird is I kind of want to see this come out to see what it looks like. Is it even viable or do we need not get up in arms. I'm against but have a curiosity
What's weird is I kind of want to see this come out to see what it looks like. Is it even viable or do we need not get up in arms. I'm against but have a curiosity
It was viable-ish with Peter Cushing in the recent Star Wars movies, but only because it was a recreation of an existing character. And even then it still was obvious. Reading about the movie they're going to use Dean's likeness in it almost sounds like a form of deepfake, CG masking over someone else, not a full not-actually-there CGI character.
It will always hit uncanny valley, it needs to hit uncanny valley, and the day it doesn't is the day Hollywood needs to be burned to the ground, because no video will be able to be trusted ever again.
Spielberg got his break (?) directing an episode for Columbo didn’t he? He’d done other things but that was the first time he got his chance to really have a go because each Columbo episode was like a mini movie.
Murder by the book; one of the stronger episodes if memory serves me correctly. There is something to be said to lounging on the sofa and watching an episode of Columbo on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Duel was Spielberg's made for TV movie that got him the Jaws gig.
Duel was awesome.
Can you even imagine going from a made for TV movie to Jaws? The stress that sort of jump could wreck a whole lot of people. Combine that with the harsh shooting conditions and its damn near a miracle Spielberg was able to give us the most perfect movie ever made. (Have no delusion, I will die on this fucking hill)
I, personally, cannot.
But also, Jaws is basically a remake of Duel, just less scary.
Now I really want a movie where a shark chases a man down the freeway for 90 minutes.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Spielberg got his break (?) directing an episode for Columbo didn’t he? He’d done other things but that was the first time he got his chance to really have a go because each Columbo episode was like a mini movie.
Murder by the book; one of the stronger episodes if memory serves me correctly. There is something to be said to lounging on the sofa and watching an episode of Columbo on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Duel was Spielberg's made for TV movie that got him the Jaws gig.
Duel was awesome.
Can you even imagine going from a made for TV movie to Jaws? The stress that sort of jump could wreck a whole lot of people. Combine that with the harsh shooting conditions and its damn near a miracle Spielberg was able to give us the most perfect movie ever made. (Have no delusion, I will die on this fucking hill)
I, personally, cannot.
But also, Jaws is basically a remake of Duel, just less scary.
Now I really want a movie where a shark chases a man down the freeway for 90 minutes.
What's weird is I kind of want to see this come out to see what it looks like. Is it even viable or do we need not get up in arms. I'm against but have a curiosity
It was viable-ish with Peter Cushing in the recent Star Wars movies, but only because it was a recreation of an existing character. And even then it still was obvious. Reading about the movie they're going to use Dean's likeness in it almost sounds like a form of deepfake, CG masking over someone else, not a full not-actually-there CGI character.
It will always hit uncanny valley, it needs to hit uncanny valley, and the day it doesn't is the day Hollywood needs to be burned to the ground, because no video will be able to be trusted ever again.
I mean, we are already at this point. It's just taking the world some time to catch up to the idea.
Just rewatched The Flowers of St. Francis because I'm working on the 1950 list and haven't seen it in years, and I was even more impressed than I was the first time. It's a very lively, naturalistic film about the saint that doesn't preach Christianity itself as much as compassion for fellow man and a connection to nature. The vignette structure bothered me the first time I saw it, but now I really like it. It's almost like little bible stories, but they have this lovely, sometimes incomplete and ambiguous tone to them, like they trust nature, or God, or the audience to take them as they will. And enough can't be said about Rossellini's visual instincts, which are incredible: painterly, authentic, simple, never once evoking the transcendental or falling into the solemnity that bogs down and antiquates so much religious art. Great movie; it felt restorative watching it.
So much better than Brother Sun, Sister Moon, which was completely ruined by its soundtrack, just like Ladyhawke.
The most irritating thing (but not the worst thing) about this James Dean bullshit is the studio saying "we looked far and wide for a suitable actor, and we decided James Dean was the best fit."
Oh, fuck you, you're not doing this because James Dean is the only actor in history who could headline your stupid Vietnam movie, it's a publicity stunt and we all know it.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Anyone else remember like 15 years ago when Disney was a laughing stock?
like "Disney? Are they still making movies?"
"They own Pixar."
"OHHHH ohohoh. That explains it. Man Disney used to be so huge. I wonder how long they'll stick around...."
Now 15 years later they own like 60% of Hollywood.
Disney the machine may not be great, but the MCU is. In a way the smartest thing Disney has done with Marvel is (ironically) leave them the hell alone. Creatively speaking.
My umbrage is with people who try and tear down the MCU by saying things like "action is crap" or "story is cookie cutter" or they are "all the same". Which is flat not true.
I detest pickles, but i don't go around claiming they're poisonous.
Taste is subjective, but there are objective qualities you can point to in food or film by way of comparison. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I like pickles, but this particular brand of pickles are too slimy, too salty, and gross-looking”.
I like superhero movies, but these particular superhero movies (in general) have bland action, are too formulaic in their plots, are too similar in visuals and score, and fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme.
Are you saying MCU movies have bland action and fail to accomplish character development and theme????
They absolutely do. SO much, that i'd posit you DONT actually like super hero movies. There may be a few that you enjoy despite the subject matter, or that arent actually "super hero movies" despite having a super hero character.
And since you probably dont actually like super hero or "comic book" style story telling you're never going to like the MCU. Which is fine! Absolutely. Again, i dont like pickles! People have tastes and thats ok.
But to say that its "bland action" and "fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme" is so just very wrong i dont even know where to start.
Like saying that pickles are poisonous. When they very much are not.
Let’s see, a list of superhero movies I really like:
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman Forever
Batman and Robin
Iron Man
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Watchmen
Unbreakable
Super
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
Black Panther
Suicide Squad
Daredevil (the Affleck one, especially the director’s cut)
X-Men
X-Men 2
Deadpool
The Incredibles
Logan
Mystery Men
Megamind
Superman Returns
The Lego Batman Movie
And I’ve enjoyed many others. I love the superhero genre, in film, comics, even novels. It’s because I love it that I’m always looking for greatness in it. And these pickles aren’t great.
You're rating Batman Forever and Batman and Robin above the majority of the movies the MCU has????
Edit: And Suicide Squad? Your expectations between DC and Marvel are not the same.
Anyone else remember like 15 years ago when Disney was a laughing stock?
like "Disney? Are they still making movies?"
"They own Pixar."
"OHHHH ohohoh. That explains it. Man Disney used to be so huge. I wonder how long they'll stick around...."
Now 15 years later they own like 60% of Hollywood.
Disney the machine may not be great, but the MCU is. In a way the smartest thing Disney has done with Marvel is (ironically) leave them the hell alone. Creatively speaking.
My umbrage is with people who try and tear down the MCU by saying things like "action is crap" or "story is cookie cutter" or they are "all the same". Which is flat not true.
I detest pickles, but i don't go around claiming they're poisonous.
Taste is subjective, but there are objective qualities you can point to in food or film by way of comparison. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I like pickles, but this particular brand of pickles are too slimy, too salty, and gross-looking”.
I like superhero movies, but these particular superhero movies (in general) have bland action, are too formulaic in their plots, are too similar in visuals and score, and fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme.
Are you saying MCU movies have bland action and fail to accomplish character development and theme????
They absolutely do. SO much, that i'd posit you DONT actually like super hero movies. There may be a few that you enjoy despite the subject matter, or that arent actually "super hero movies" despite having a super hero character.
And since you probably dont actually like super hero or "comic book" style story telling you're never going to like the MCU. Which is fine! Absolutely. Again, i dont like pickles! People have tastes and thats ok.
But to say that its "bland action" and "fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme" is so just very wrong i dont even know where to start.
Like saying that pickles are poisonous. When they very much are not.
Let’s see, a list of superhero movies I really like:
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman Forever
Batman and Robin
Iron Man
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Watchmen
Unbreakable
Super
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
Black Panther
Suicide Squad
Daredevil (the Affleck one, especially the director’s cut)
X-Men
X-Men 2
Deadpool
The Incredibles
Logan
Mystery Men
Megamind
Superman Returns
The Lego Batman Movie
And I’ve enjoyed many others. I love the superhero genre, in film, comics, even novels. It’s because I love it that I’m always looking for greatness in it. And these pickles aren’t great.
You're rating Batman Forever and Batman and Robin above the majority of the movies the MCU has????
The most irritating thing (but not the worst thing) about this James Dean bullshit is the studio saying "we looked far and wide for a suitable actor, and we decided James Dean was the best fit."
Oh, fuck you, you're not doing this because James Dean is the only actor in history who could headline your stupid Vietnam movie, it's a publicity stunt and we all know it.
It's also a stab and a statement: "All Your Dead Are Belong To Us"
It's fair to say DC has higher highs than Marvel, it's when terrible movies that everyone knows is terrible gets a pass over the majority of Marvel's output that I find irritating.
It's fair to say DC has higher highs than Marvel, it's when terrible movies that everyone knows is terrible gets a pass over the majority of Marvel's output that I find irritating.
Ohhh.. is this the one they reviewed on RLM? It legit looked like a fun film.
Spielberg got his break (?) directing an episode for Columbo didn’t he? He’d done other things but that was the first time he got his chance to really have a go because each Columbo episode was like a mini movie.
Murder by the book; one of the stronger episodes if memory serves me correctly. There is something to be said to lounging on the sofa and watching an episode of Columbo on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Duel was Spielberg's made for TV movie that got him the Jaws gig.
Duel was awesome.
Can you even imagine going from a made for TV movie to Jaws? The stress that sort of jump could wreck a whole lot of people. Combine that with the harsh shooting conditions and its damn near a miracle Spielberg was able to give us the most perfect movie ever made. (Have no delusion, I will die on this fucking hill)
I, personally, cannot.
But also, Jaws is basically a remake of Duel, just less scary.
Now I really want a movie where a shark chases a man down the freeway for 90 minutes.
Sharkfury road from the makers of sharknado
Nah, it's Speed, but instead of a bomb on the bus, it's a shark chasing it.
Anyone else remember like 15 years ago when Disney was a laughing stock?
like "Disney? Are they still making movies?"
"They own Pixar."
"OHHHH ohohoh. That explains it. Man Disney used to be so huge. I wonder how long they'll stick around...."
Now 15 years later they own like 60% of Hollywood.
Disney the machine may not be great, but the MCU is. In a way the smartest thing Disney has done with Marvel is (ironically) leave them the hell alone. Creatively speaking.
My umbrage is with people who try and tear down the MCU by saying things like "action is crap" or "story is cookie cutter" or they are "all the same". Which is flat not true.
I detest pickles, but i don't go around claiming they're poisonous.
Taste is subjective, but there are objective qualities you can point to in food or film by way of comparison. There’s nothing wrong with saying “I like pickles, but this particular brand of pickles are too slimy, too salty, and gross-looking”.
I like superhero movies, but these particular superhero movies (in general) have bland action, are too formulaic in their plots, are too similar in visuals and score, and fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme.
Are you saying MCU movies have bland action and fail to accomplish character development and theme????
They absolutely do. SO much, that i'd posit you DONT actually like super hero movies. There may be a few that you enjoy despite the subject matter, or that arent actually "super hero movies" despite having a super hero character.
And since you probably dont actually like super hero or "comic book" style story telling you're never going to like the MCU. Which is fine! Absolutely. Again, i dont like pickles! People have tastes and thats ok.
But to say that its "bland action" and "fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme" is so just very wrong i dont even know where to start.
Like saying that pickles are poisonous. When they very much are not.
Let’s see, a list of superhero movies I really like:
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman Forever
Batman and Robin
Iron Man
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Watchmen
Unbreakable
Super
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
Black Panther
Suicide Squad
Daredevil (the Affleck one, especially the director’s cut)
X-Men
X-Men 2
Deadpool
The Incredibles
Logan
Mystery Men
Megamind
Superman Returns
The Lego Batman Movie
And I’ve enjoyed many others. I love the superhero genre, in film, comics, even novels. It’s because I love it that I’m always looking for greatness in it. And these pickles aren’t great.
You're rating Batman Forever and Batman and Robin above the majority of the movies the MCU has????
Edit: And Suicide Squad? Your expectations between DC and Marvel are not the same.
I don't like Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, but they are very clearly doing their thing and doing it well imo. If that kind of cartoony campy version of superhero story is your thing, there they are.
It's like enjoying the old Adam West Batman stuff.
Spielberg got his break (?) directing an episode for Columbo didn’t he? He’d done other things but that was the first time he got his chance to really have a go because each Columbo episode was like a mini movie.
Murder by the book; one of the stronger episodes if memory serves me correctly. There is something to be said to lounging on the sofa and watching an episode of Columbo on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Duel was Spielberg's made for TV movie that got him the Jaws gig.
Duel was awesome.
Can you even imagine going from a made for TV movie to Jaws? The stress that sort of jump could wreck a whole lot of people. Combine that with the harsh shooting conditions and its damn near a miracle Spielberg was able to give us the most perfect movie ever made. (Have no delusion, I will die on this fucking hill)
I, personally, cannot.
But also, Jaws is basically a remake of Duel, just less scary.
Now I really want a movie where a shark chases a man down the freeway for 90 minutes.
Sharkfury road from the makers of sharknado
Nah, it's Speed, but instead of a bomb on the bus, it's a shark chasing it.
Spielberg got his break (?) directing an episode for Columbo didn’t he? He’d done other things but that was the first time he got his chance to really have a go because each Columbo episode was like a mini movie.
Murder by the book; one of the stronger episodes if memory serves me correctly. There is something to be said to lounging on the sofa and watching an episode of Columbo on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Duel was Spielberg's made for TV movie that got him the Jaws gig.
Duel was awesome.
Can you even imagine going from a made for TV movie to Jaws? The stress that sort of jump could wreck a whole lot of people. Combine that with the harsh shooting conditions and its damn near a miracle Spielberg was able to give us the most perfect movie ever made. (Have no delusion, I will die on this fucking hill)
I, personally, cannot.
But also, Jaws is basically a remake of Duel, just less scary.
Now I really want a movie where a shark chases a man down the freeway for 90 minutes.
Sharkfury road from the makers of sharknado
Nah, it's Speed, but instead of a bomb on the bus, it's a shark chasing it.
The most irritating thing (but not the worst thing) about this James Dean bullshit is the studio saying "we looked far and wide for a suitable actor, and we decided James Dean was the best fit."
Oh, fuck you, you're not doing this because James Dean is the only actor in history who could headline your stupid Vietnam movie, it's a publicity stunt and we all know it.
Like, from a marketing standpoint that's absolutely true.
From a production standpoint, isn't this essentially Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter just with digital artists instead of makeup artists to make the actor look like a historical figure.
For some of the action sequences, the shots were probably entirely CGI Abe Lincoln models already - you could have swapped in James Dean or Darth Vader or anyone you please.
Abe Lincoln in ALVH was Abe Lincoln though. It was someone playing as a vampire hunting Abe Lincoln. Even CG Abe Lincoln playing Abe Lincoln would still just be Abe Lincoln. James Dean in this movie won't be James Dean, he'll be the digital representation of James Dean playing a character in the movie. If they were just recreating his likeness because they really wanted James Dean in their movie as James Dean it would be one thing. This is recreating a dead actor to play a different part, and then imagining how Dean would've played the role.
On top of that, as the movie takes place at the end of the Vietnam war, James Dean had been dead for 20 years at that point. Even if we're talking "official" start of the Vietnam war, November 1st 1955, Dean had been dead for a month and a day by then. So it won't even be a representation of the James Dean everyone's seen in actual movies, it will be whatever they think he might've been like had he not died in 1955, and experienced something he never experienced.
Posts
There is still executive meddling, it just comes at the “do we pick this up for distribution” stage instead of at the “during filming we are making sure this is something we want to distribute”
MWO: Adamski
Yes, studio funded pictures are far more susceptible to this because they're owned by the studio. It's also something that has been done for decades: Focus testing, rewrites, reshoots, marketing, etc. Making a movie with studio money results in studio control. Holy shit.
This all came about from Scorsese naming people who publish films through major studios, which means they likely go through the same path since I don't remember the last one of them that got picked up on the indie circuit.
It's just more "back my day men were real men and the Beatles were the best music ever made and nobody can do it better" boomer shit.
Investors still give notes and make filming demands.
What magic words do you want before a post to accept that someone is just posting their opinion?
Probably not ones that define this as objective truth: "but these particular superhero movies (in general) have bland action, are too formulaic in their plots, are too similar in visuals and score, and fail to accomplish basic tasks like good character development and theme."
Ok but on the last page you were saying emphatically that it was every movie and you required proof that the opposite wasn't true. I was just posting to let you know that, hey, I have friends who do this for a living and that it is not always the case.
I agree, but it was framed as an objective observation.
Major studios.
Especially major movies that get released nationwide by big names. If there was any confusion on my part I do apologize.
I'm not getting your distinction then because the films I'm talking about have major distribution and nationwide theater presences and an ongoing life on Netflix etc.
I guess ultimately my point is that not every movie gets made the way you seem to think they get made. Not even most movies for that fact. Yes, a lot of major motion pictures are made by committee, but not all of them. Not even close. That being said, I really doubt that the Marvel/Starwars, etc of the world don't have a million fingers in the pie.
Oh the Marvel and Star Wars films have a billion or so fingers in the pie.
China joke.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/11/07/entertainment/james-dean-cgi-casting-trnd/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
Let’s see, a list of superhero movies I really like:
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman Forever
Batman and Robin
Iron Man
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Watchmen
Unbreakable
Super
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
Black Panther
Suicide Squad
Daredevil (the Affleck one, especially the director’s cut)
X-Men
X-Men 2
Deadpool
The Incredibles
Logan
Mystery Men
Megamind
Superman Returns
The Lego Batman Movie
And I’ve enjoyed many others. I love the superhero genre, in film, comics, even novels. It’s because I love it that I’m always looking for greatness in it. And these pickles aren’t great.
Dead people should be in the public domain after a certain amount of time! Anyone should be able to dig up ole James Dean and use him in their project without negotiating with his estate.
I disagree, the human soul falls far more in line with trademark guidelines than copyright ownership, which means if it's maintained by the estate it remains viable.
Fair point, I now agree with you one-hundred percent.
It was viable-ish with Peter Cushing in the recent Star Wars movies, but only because it was a recreation of an existing character. And even then it still was obvious. Reading about the movie they're going to use Dean's likeness in it almost sounds like a form of deepfake, CG masking over someone else, not a full not-actually-there CGI character.
It will always hit uncanny valley, it needs to hit uncanny valley, and the day it doesn't is the day Hollywood needs to be burned to the ground, because no video will be able to be trusted ever again.
Now I really want a movie where a shark chases a man down the freeway for 90 minutes.
Sharkfury road from the makers of sharknado
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Oh, fuck you, you're not doing this because James Dean is the only actor in history who could headline your stupid Vietnam movie, it's a publicity stunt and we all know it.
You're rating Batman Forever and Batman and Robin above the majority of the movies the MCU has????
Edit: And Suicide Squad? Your expectations between DC and Marvel are not the same.
Along with Bat-Ass and Bat-nipples.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
It's also a stab and a statement: "All Your Dead Are Belong To Us"
Signed, Hollywood.
Marvel movies a charm but nobody is going around making a case for this.
It's fair to say DC has higher highs than Marvel, it's when terrible movies that everyone knows is terrible gets a pass over the majority of Marvel's output that I find irritating.
Ohhh.. is this the one they reviewed on RLM? It legit looked like a fun film.
Nah, it's Speed, but instead of a bomb on the bus, it's a shark chasing it.
I don't like Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, but they are very clearly doing their thing and doing it well imo. If that kind of cartoony campy version of superhero story is your thing, there they are.
It's like enjoying the old Adam West Batman stuff.
And the shark is on fire.
Steam | XBL
From a production standpoint, isn't this essentially Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter just with digital artists instead of makeup artists to make the actor look like a historical figure.
For some of the action sequences, the shots were probably entirely CGI Abe Lincoln models already - you could have swapped in James Dean or Darth Vader or anyone you please.
On top of that, as the movie takes place at the end of the Vietnam war, James Dean had been dead for 20 years at that point. Even if we're talking "official" start of the Vietnam war, November 1st 1955, Dean had been dead for a month and a day by then. So it won't even be a representation of the James Dean everyone's seen in actual movies, it will be whatever they think he might've been like had he not died in 1955, and experienced something he never experienced.